Adopting an existing automation script to a new framework

ABSTRACT

Arrangements described herein relate to adopting an existing automation script to a new framework. A first version of an automation script configured to execute in a first framework, and expected unit test results for the automation script, are received. A second version of the automation script is created from the first version of the automation script. The second version of the automation script is configured to execute in at least a second framework. The first version of the automation script is executed in the first framework to run a first version of a unit test and the second version of the automation script is executed in the second framework to run a second version of the unit test. Results generated by execution of the first and second versions of the automation script are analyzed to validate the second version of the automation script.

BACKGROUND

Arrangements disclosed herein relate to frameworks and, moreparticularly, to the use of automation scripts.

Software Engineers currently depend upon a large amount of automationscripts written in a particular framework. Examples of such frameworksinclude the IBM® Workload Deployer cloud framework, Rational® BuildForge® and Tivoli® Service Automation Manager. Still, numerous otherframeworks commonly are used. Software Engineers constantly developautomation in these frameworks to support old and new systems whileattempting to transition to new virtualized delivery and deploymentmodels such as the IBM SmartCloud® Continuous Delivery. The IBMSmartCloud® Continuous Delivery model uses and promotes an executionenvironment that is based not only on proprietary technology, but alsoopen-source toolkits and frameworks, that are used to drive automationin a cloud network.

BRIEF SUMMARY

Arrangements described herein relate to adopting an existing automationscript to a new framework.

A method of includes receiving a first version of an automation scriptconfigured to execute in a first framework and expected unit testresults for the automation script, and automatically creating, using aprocessor, a second version of the automation script from the firstversion of the automation script. The second version of the automationscript is configured to execute in at least a second framework. Themethod also includes executing the first version of the automationscript in the first framework to run a first version of a unit test andexecuting the second version of the automation script in the secondframework to run a second version of the unit test. The method furtherincludes comparing at least a first output generated by the firstversion of the automation script running the first version of the unittest and at least a second output generated by the second version of theautomation script running the second version of the unit test to atleast one expected unit test result to determine whether the firstoutput and the second output correlate with the expected unit testresult. Responsive at least to the first output and the second outputcorrelating with the expected unit test result, a determination can bemade that the second version of the automation script is valid.

A system includes a processor programmed to initiate executableoperations. The executable operations include receiving a first versionof an automation script configured to execute in a first framework andexpected unit test results for the automation script, and automaticallycreating a second version of the automation script from the firstversion of the automation script. The second version of the automationscript is configured to execute in at least a second framework. Theexecutable operations also include executing the first version of theautomation script in the first framework to run a first version of aunit test and executing the second version of the automation script inthe second framework to run a second version of the unit test. Theexecutable operations further include comparing at least a first outputgenerated by the first version of the automation script running thefirst version of the unit test and at least a second output generated bythe second version of the automation script running the second versionof the unit test to at least one expected unit test result to determinewhether the first output and the second output correlate with theexpected unit test result. Responsive at least to the first output andthe second output correlating with the expected unit test result, adetermination can be made that the second version of the automationscript is valid.

A computer program product includes a computer readable storage mediumhaving program code stored thereon. The program code is executable by aprocessor to perform a method. The method includes receiving, by theprocessor, a first version of an automation script configured to executein a first framework and expected unit test results for the automationscript, and automatically creating, by the processor, a second versionof the automation script from the first version of the automationscript. The second version of the automation script is configured toexecute in at least a second framework. The method also includesexecuting, by the processor, the first version of the automation scriptin the first framework to run a first version of a unit test andexecuting the second version of the automation script in the secondframework to run a second version of the unit test. The method furtherincludes comparing, by the processor, at least a first output generatedby the first version of the automation script running the first versionof the unit test and at least a second output generated by the secondversion of the automation script running the second version of the unittest to at least one expected unit test result to determine whether thefirst output and the second output correlate with the expected unit testresult. Responsive at least to the first output and the second outputcorrelating with the expected unit test result, a determination can bemade, by the processor, that the second version of the automation scriptis valid.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a system thatadopts an existing automation script to a new framework.

FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating an example of a method of adoptingan existing automation script to a new framework.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary architecture for aprocessing system configured to adopt an existing automation script to anew framework.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the presentinvention may be embodied as a system, method or computer programproduct. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the formof an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment(including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or anembodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may allgenerally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.”Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of acomputer program product embodied in one or more computer-readablemedium(s) having computer-readable program code embodied, e.g., stored,thereon. Any combination of one or more computer-readable medium(s) maybe utilized. The computer-readable medium may be a computer-readablesignal medium, a computer-readable storage medium, or a combinationthereof.

As defined herein, the term “computer-readable storage medium” means astorage medium that contains or stores program code for use by or inconnection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.As defined herein, a “computer-readable storage medium” is not atransitory propagating signal per se. A computer-readable storage mediummay be, for example, but is not limited to, an electronic, magnetic,optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus,or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specificexamples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer-readable storage mediumwould include the following: an electrical connection having one or morewires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solidstate drive (SSD), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory(ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flashmemory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory(CD-ROM), a digital versatile disc (DVD), an optical storage device, amagnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing.

A computer-readable signal medium may include a propagated data signalwith computer-readable program code embodied therein, for example, inbaseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may takeany of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to,electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. Acomputer-readable signal medium may be any computer-readable medium thatis not a computer-readable storage medium and that can communicate,propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with aninstruction execution system, apparatus, or device.

Program code embodied on a computer-readable medium may be transmittedusing any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless,wireline, optical fiber, cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination ofthe foregoing. Computer program code for carrying out operations foraspects of the present invention may be written in any combination ofone or more programming languages, including an object orientedprogramming language such as Java®, Smalltalk, C++ or the like andconventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C”programming language or similar programming languages. The program codemay execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user'scomputer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user'scomputer and partly on a remote computer, or entirely on the remotecomputer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may beconnected to the user's computer through any type of network, includinga local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or theconnection may be made to an external computer (for example, through theInternet using an Internet Service Provider).

Aspects of the present invention are described below with reference toflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus(systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of theinvention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchartillustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in theflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented bycomputer program instructions. These computer program instructions maybe provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, specialpurpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus toproduce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via theprocessor of the computer, other programmable data processing apparatus,or other devices create means for implementing the functions/actsspecified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.

These computer program instructions may also be stored in acomputer-readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmabledata processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particularmanner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readablemedium produce an article of manufacture including instructions whichimplement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks.

The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer,other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to causea series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, otherprogrammable apparatus or other devices to produce a computerimplemented process such that the instructions which execute on thecomputer or other programmable apparatus provide processes forimplementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks.

For purposes of simplicity and clarity of illustration, elements shownin the figures have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example,the dimensions of some of the elements may be exaggerated relative toother elements for clarity. Further, where considered appropriate,reference numbers are repeated among the figures to indicatecorresponding, analogous, or like features.

Arrangements described herein relate to adopting an existing automationscript to a new framework. Specifically, an automation script, which isconfigured to execute in a particular framework, can be received. Inaddition, a unit test designed to exercise the automation script, aswell as expected test results, also can be received. The automationscript can be processed to generate another version configured toexecute in at least one other framework. In addition to generating a newversion of the automation script, a new version of the unit test,configured to exercise the new version of the automation script on theother framework(s), also can be generated. The original version of theautomation script and the new version both can be executed in parallelon respective virtual machines to run the respective versions of theunit test. If the outputs generated by the respective versions of theautomation script correlate to one another, as well as to the expectedunit test results, and the system states of the respective virtualmachines correlate when or after the unit tests execute, the newversions of the automation script and unit test can be determined to bevalid, and output to be made available for deployment.

Advantageously, generating new versions of automation scripts and unittests from existing automation scripts and unit tests saves much timespent on system administration. Rather than writing new automationscripts and unit tests for new frameworks, existing automation scriptsand unit tests can be quickly converted into new versions that properlyexecute in the other frameworks. Moreover, the new versions of theautomation scripts and unit tests can be configured to be platformindependent, allowing them not only to be deployed for use in newframeworks, but also for use in the framework for which they wereoriginally developed. Thus, for a particular automation process, asingle automation script and unit test can be used to automate suchprocess in any of a variety of platforms that may exist in a cloudnetwork.

Several additional definitions that apply throughout this document willnow be presented.

As defined herein, the term “automation script” means software thatincludes a launch point and source code written in a scripting languageconfigured to automate one or more tasks within a system. For example,automation script can be used to automate installation of an applicationor service on a system, implement object rules, field validations,workflow or escalation actions, workflow condition logic and securitycondition logic, etc.

As defined herein, the term “launch point” means a script configuration.The launch point identifies a target application or context, andvariables that are passed between the application and the source code.In this regard, the launch point defines the execution context for thesource code contained in an automation script.

As defined herein, the term “unit test” means an automated testconfigured to be run by automation script in order to validate theautomation script.

As defined herein, the term “output” means at least one result caused byan automation script to be generated or occur. Such result can be, forexample, a configuration of an application or system, a file or otherdata that is generated, or any other result that an automated script maycause to be generated or occur.

As defined herein, the term “framework” means a reusable softwareplatform to develop applications, products and/or solutions. A frameworkcan include support programs, compilers, code libraries, tool setsand/or application programming interfaces that enable development of aproject or solution.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a system 100 thatadopts an existing automation script to a new framework. The system 100can include a validation module 110 and a conversion module 120. Thevalidation module 110 can receive an original version of automationscript (hereinafter “script”) 130, an original version of a unit test(hereinafter “unit test”) 132 and expected unit test results(hereinafter “expected results”) 134. The script 130 can be configuredto execute in a particular framework. By way of example, the script 130can be a Unix® shell artifact configured to execute in a Unix®framework. The present arrangements are not limited to this specificexample, however. Indeed, the script 130 can be configured to execute inframeworks for Windows®, Windows Server®, Linux®, or any otherframework.

Initially, the validation module 110 can validate the script 130 todetermine whether the script 130 properly functions. In illustration,the validation module 110 can pass the script 130 and unit test 132 to asystem, such as a virtual machine 140. The virtual machine 140 canprovide the framework in which the script 130 is configured to execute.For example, if the script 130 is a Unix® shell artifact, the virtualmachine can host a Unix® operating system. The virtual machine 140 canexecute on the same processing system on which the validation module 110executes, or on another processing system communicatively linked to theprocessing system on which the validation module 110 executes. At thebehest of the validation module 110, the virtual machine 140 can executethe script 130 to run the unit test 132 and generate at least oneoutput. The validation module 110 can compare the output to the expectedresults 134 to determine whether the output correlates with the expectedresults 134. If so, the script 130 can be considered to be valid. Inthis regard, the validation module 110 can interface with the virtualmachine 140 in a manner than enables the validation module 110 to accessthe output generated by the script 130.

If the script 130 is valid, the validation module 110 can pass a copy ofthe script 130 to the conversion module 120, which can process thescript 130 to create a new version of the automation script (hereafter“new script”) 150. In illustration, the conversion module 120 cancompare application programming interfaces (APIs) of the framework inwhich the script 130 is configured to execute to APIs of the newframework in which the new script 150 is to be configured to execute inorder to identify changes that need to be made to the source code and/orlaunch point of the script 130 to make the script 130 compatible withthe new framework, while retaining its original functionality. Thesechanges can be made to the script 130 (i.e., the copy of the script 130passed to the conversion module 120) to generate the new script 150.

The conversion module 120 can configure the new script 150 to execute inone or more frameworks, with at least one of these frameworks beingdifferent than the framework in which the script 130 is configured toexecute. In one example, the new script 150 can be configured as Rubyscript. Ruby is a platform independent framework that may operate withany of a number of other frameworks. Moreover, the new script 150 can beencapsulated as a Chef Recipe. Chef is an open-source systemsintegration framework built specifically for automating processesperformed in a cloud network. A Chef Recipe is a Ruby-based automationscript configured to execute in the Chef framework. The presentarrangements are not limited to this example, however, and the newscript 150 can be configured as any other suitable type of automationscript. In one aspect, the validation module 110 or the conversionmodule 120 can prompt a user to specify the type of automation script tobe generated, and the conversion module 120 can generate the new script150 accordingly.

Further, the validation module 110 also can pass a copy of the unit test132 to the conversion module 120, and the conversion module can processthe unit test 132 to create a new version of the unit test (hereinafter“new unit test”) 152. The conversion module 120 can configure the newunit test 152 to be run by the new script 150 when the new script 150 isexecuted in order to validate the new script 150. Continuing with theprevious example, the new unit test 152 can be configured as a Cucumberunit test. A Cucumber unit test is a Ruby-based unit test that supportsvalidation using a Ruby unit test framework.

The validation module 110 can receive the new script 150 and new unittest 152, and perform an initial validation on the new script 150 toconfirm the new script 150 is executable. For example, the validationmodule 110 can pass the new script to a system, such as a virtualmachine 160, to test the new script 150 to verify that it will indeedexecute. If the new script 150 passes such validation, the validationmodule 110 also can pass the new unit test 152 to the virtual machine160. The virtual machine 160 can execute on the same processing systemon which the validation module 110 executes, or on another processingsystem communicatively linked to the processing system on which thevalidation module 110 executes. In one arrangement, the virtual machine140 and the virtual machine 160 both can execute on the same processingsystem, though this need not be the case.

The validation module 110 can interface with the virtual machines 140,160 to initiate execution of the script 130 to run the unit test 132 onthe virtual machine 140 and initiate execution of the new script 150 torun the unit test 152 on the virtual machine 160. Moreover, thevalidation module 110 can initiate such executions so that the script130 and the new script 150 execute in parallel, line by line. As thescript 130 and new script 150 generate respective outputs 170, 172, thevalidation module 110 can compare the outputs 170, 172 to the expectedresults 134 to determine whether the outputs 170, 172 correlate with theexpected results 134. Further, the validation module 110 can compare theoutputs 172 generated by the new script 150 to outputs 170 generated bythe script 130 to determine whether these outputs 170, 172 correlate. Ifthe outputs 172 generated by the new script 150 do not correlate withthe expected results 134 and/or the outputs 170 generated by the script130, the new script 150 and/or new unit test 152 can be identified asbeing invalid. Otherwise, the validation module 110 can determine thatthe new script 150 and new unit test have passed a portion of thevalidation process based on proper outputs 172 being generated.

In one aspect, as the scripts 130, 150 execute in parallel, line byline, the validation module 110 can monitor each sequential output 170,172 generated by each of the scripts 130, 150, identify which outputs170 generated by the script 130 correspond to outputs 172 generated bythe new script 150. Such outputs 170, 172 can be identified as an outputpair. Each output 170, 172 in an output pair can be compared to theexpected results 134. When at least one of the outputs 170, 172 in anoutput pair do not correlate with the expected results 134, or theoutputs 170, 172 in the output pair do not correlate with one another,the validation module 110 can identify code in the respective scripts130, 150 that generate the subject outputs 170, 172 in the output pair.Moreover, the validation module 110 can identify portions of therespective unit tests 132, 152 being operated upon by the identifiedcode. Such identification can facilitate debugging of the scripts 130,150 and/or the unit tests 132, 152. For example, a user can revise theidentified code in the new script 150, revise the new unit test 152,revise the process used by the conversion module 120 to generate the newscript 150 and/or revise the process used by the conversion module 120to generate the new unit test 152.

In addition to validating the outputs 170, 172 generated by the scripts130, 150, the validation module 110 also can compare the states 180, 182of respective the virtual machines 140, 160 during or after execution ofthe respective scripts 130, 150. For example, at the behest of thevalidation module 110, snapshots of the states 180, 182 can be capturedand passed to the validation module 110 to determine whether the states180, 182 contain the same changes made by the respective scripts 130,150. One example of a tool that can be used to capture the snapshots isVMware® vCenter® Operations Management Suite. Examples of informationindicated in the system states 180, 182 that can be compared include,but are not limited to, new directories that have been created, thestate of new software that has been installed, operating system changes,etc. If the states 180, 182 do not correlate, the new script 150 and/orthe new unit test 152 can be identified as being invalid. Otherwise, thevalidation module 110 can determine that the new script 150 and new unittest 152 have passed a portion of the validation process based on aproper system state being identified.

If the new script 150 and new unit test 152 pass the both the portion ofthe validation process that examines the outputs 172 generated by thenew script 150 and the portion of the validation process that examinesthe system state 182, then the new script 150 and new unit test 152 canbe considered valid and output to be made available for deployment. Byway of example, a Unix® shell artifact can be converted to a Chef Recipeand a corresponding unit test can be converted to a Cucumber unit test.Because a Chef Recipe and a Cucumber unit test are platform independent,they can be used to not only automate processes performed in a Unix®operating system, but also automate processes performed in otherplatforms. This greatly increases administration efficiency in cloudnetworks that incorporate various different software platforms.

FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating an example of a method 200 ofadopting an existing automation script to a new framework. At step 202,a first version of an automation script configured to execute in a firstframework and expected unit test results for the automation script canbe received. A first version of a unit test also can be received. Atstep 204, a second version of the automation script can be created,using a processor, from the first version of the automation script. Thesecond version of the automation script can be configured to execute inat least a second framework. At step 206, a second version of the unittest can be automatically created from the first version of the unittest.

At step 208, the first version of the automation script can be executedin the first framework to run the first version of the unit test and thesecond version of the automation script can be executed in the secondframework to run the second version of the unit test. At step 210, atleast a first output generated by the first version of the automationscript running the first version of the unit test and at least a secondoutput generated by the second version of the automation script runningthe second version of the unit test can be compared to at least oneexpected unit test result to determine whether the first output and thesecond output correlate with the expected unit test result. At step 212,a first state of a first system hosting the first framework can becaptured post execution of the first version of the automation scriptand a second state of a second system hosting the second framework canbe captured post execution of the second version of the automationscript. At step 214, the second state of the second system can becompared to the first state of the first system to determine whether thesecond state correlates with the first state.

At step 216, responsive to the first output and the second outputcorrelating with the expected unit test result and the second statecorrelating to the first state, a determination can be made that thesecond version of the automation script is valid. The second version ofthe automated script and the second version of the unit test can beoutput for deployment.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary architecture for aprocessing system 300 configured to adopt an existing automation scriptto a new framework. The processing system 300 can include at least oneprocessor 305 (e.g., a central processing unit) coupled to memoryelements 310 through a system bus 315 or other suitable circuitry. Assuch, the processing system 300 can store program code within the memoryelements 310. The processor 305 can execute the program code accessedfrom the memory elements 310 via the system bus 315. It should beappreciated that the processing system 300 can be implemented in theform of any system including a processor and memory that is capable ofperforming the functions and/or operations described within thisspecification. For example, the processing system 300 can be implementedas server, a workstation, a desktop computer, a mobile computer, alaptop computer, a tablet computer, and so on.

The memory elements 310 can include one or more physical memory devicessuch as, for example, local memory 320 and one or more bulk storagedevices 325. Local memory 320 refers to RAM or other non-persistentmemory device(s) generally used during actual execution of the programcode. The bulk storage device(s) 325 can be implemented as a hard diskdrive (HDD), solid state drive (SSD), or other persistent data storagedevice. The processing system 300 also can include one or more cachememories (not shown) that provide temporary storage of at least someprogram code in order to reduce the number of times program code must beretrieved from the bulk storage device 325 during execution.

Input/output (I/O) devices such as a display 330, a pointing device 335and a keyboard 340 optionally can be coupled to the processing system300. The I/O devices can be coupled to the processing system 300 eitherdirectly or through intervening I/O controllers. For example, thedisplay 330 can be coupled to the processing system 300 via a graphicsprocessing unit (GPU), which may be a component of the processor 305 ora discrete device. One or more network adapters 345 also can be coupledto processing system 300 to enable processing system 300 to becomecoupled to other systems, computer systems, remote printers, and/orremote storage devices through intervening private or public networks.Modems, cable modems, transceivers, and Ethernet cards are examples ofdifferent types of network adapters 345 that can be used with processingsystem 300.

As pictured in FIG. 3, the memory elements 310 can store the componentsof the system 100 of FIG. 1, namely the validation module 110 and theconversion module 120. Being implemented in the form of executableprogram code, these components of the system 100 can be executed by theprocessing system 300 and, as such, can be considered part of theprocessing system 300. Moreover, the validation module 110 and theconversion module 120 are functional data structures that impartfunctionality when employed as part of the processing system 300 of FIG.3.

The memory elements 310 also can store the script 130, the unit test 132and the expected results 134 of the system of FIG. 1. These also arefunctional data structures that impart functionality when employed aspart of the processing system 300 of FIG. 3.

Further, the memory elements can store one or both of the virtualmachines 140, 160 of the system of FIG. 1. These also are functionaldata structures that impart functionality when employed as part of theprocessing system 300 of FIG. 3. As noted, the virtual machines 140, 160may be hosted on other processing systems to which the processing system300 is communicatively linked via the network adapter 345.

The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate thearchitecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementationsof systems, methods and computer program products according to variousembodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in theflowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portionof code, which comprises one or more executable instructions forimplementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be notedthat, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in theblock may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, twoblocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantiallyconcurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverseorder, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be notedthat each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, andcombinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchartillustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-basedsystems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations ofspecial purpose hardware and computer instructions.

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particularembodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention. Asused herein, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended toinclude the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicatesotherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “includes,”“including,” “comprises,” and/or “comprising,” when used in thisspecification, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps,operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude thepresence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps,operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof.

Reference throughout this specification to “one embodiment,” “anembodiment,” or similar language means that a particular feature,structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodimentis included in at least one embodiment disclosed within thisspecification. Thus, appearances of the phrases “in one embodiment,” “inan embodiment,” and similar language throughout this specification may,but do not necessarily, all refer to the same embodiment.

The term “plurality,” as used herein, is defined as two or more thantwo. The term “another,” as used herein, is defined as at least a secondor more. The term “coupled,” as used herein, is defined as connected,whether directly without any intervening elements or indirectly with oneor more intervening elements, unless otherwise indicated. Two elementsalso can be coupled mechanically, electrically, or communicativelylinked through a communication channel, pathway, network, or system. Theterm “and/or” as used herein refers to and encompasses any and allpossible combinations of one or more of the associated listed items. Itwill also be understood that, although the terms first, second, etc. maybe used herein to describe various elements, these elements should notbe limited by these terms, as these terms are only used to distinguishone element from another unless stated otherwise or the contextindicates otherwise.

The term “if” may be construed to mean “when” or “upon” or “in responseto determining” or “in response to detecting,” depending on the context.Similarly, the phrase “if it is determined” or “if [a stated conditionor event] is detected” may be construed to mean “upon determining” or“in response to determining” or “upon detecting [the stated condition orevent]” or “in response to detecting [the stated condition or event],”depending on the context.

The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and equivalents of allmeans or step plus function elements in the claims below are intended toinclude any structure, material, or act for performing the function incombination with other claimed elements as specifically claimed. Thedescription of the embodiments disclosed within this specification havebeen presented for purposes of illustration and description, but are notintended to be exhaustive or limited to the form disclosed. Manymodifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skillin the art without departing from the scope and spirit of theembodiments of the invention. The embodiments were chosen and describedin order to best explain the principles of the invention and thepractical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the artto understand the inventive arrangements for various embodiments withvarious modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method comprising: receiving a first version ofan automation script configured to execute in a first framework andexpected unit test results for the automation script; automaticallycreating, using a processor, a second version of the automation scriptfrom the first version of the automation script, the second version ofthe automation script configured to execute in at least a secondframework; executing the first version of the automation script in thefirst framework to run a first version of a unit test and executing thesecond version of the automation script in the second framework to run asecond version of the unit test; comparing at least a first outputgenerated by the first version of the automation script running thefirst version of the unit test and at least a second output generated bythe second version of the automation script running the second versionof the unit test to at least one expected unit test result to determinewhether the first output and the second output correlate with theexpected unit test result; and responsive at least to the first outputand the second output correlating with the expected unit test result,determining the second version of the automation script is valid.
 2. Themethod of claim 1, further comprising: automatically creating the secondversion of the unit test from the first version of the unit test.
 3. Themethod of claim 2, further comprising: responsive to determining thesecond version of the automation script is valid, outputting the secondversion of the automation script and the second version of the unittest.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein: execution of the first versionof the automation script in the first framework to run the first versionof the unit test generates a first plurality of outputs; execution ofthe second version of the automation script in the second framework torun the second version of the unit test generates a second plurality ofoutputs; executing the first version of the automation script in thefirst framework to run the first version of the unit test and executingthe second version of the automation script in the second framework torun the second version of the unit test comprises: executing the firstversion of the automation script and executing the second version of theautomation script in parallel; and comparing at least the first outputgenerated by the first version of the automation script running thefirst version of the unit test and at least the second output generatedby the second version of the automation script running the secondversion of the unit test to at least one expected unit test result todetermine whether the first output and the second output correlate withthe expected unit test result comprises: comparing each sequential oneof the first plurality of outputs and a corresponding one of the secondplurality of outputs to the expected unit test result as output pairs.5. The method of claim 4, further comprising: when at least one outputin a particular output pair does not correlate with the expected unittest result, identifying code in the first version of the automationscript and code in the second version of the automation script thatgenerate the respective outputs in the output pair.
 6. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising: capturing a first state of a first systemhosting the first framework post execution of the first version of theautomation script; capturing a second state of a second system hostingthe second framework post execution of the second version of theautomation script; and comparing the second state of the second systemto the first state of the first system to determine whether the secondstate correlates with the first state; wherein determining the secondversion of the automation script is valid further is responsive to thesecond state correlating with the first state.
 7. The method of claim 1,wherein the second version of the automation script is configured toexecute in a plurality of frameworks.
 8. A system comprising: aprocessor programmed to initiate executable operations comprising:receiving a first version of an automation script configured to executein a first framework and expected unit test results for the automationscript; automatically creating a second version of the automation scriptfrom the first version of the automation script, the second version ofthe automation script configured to execute in at least a secondframework; executing the first version of the automation script in thefirst framework to run a first version of a unit test and executing thesecond version of the automation script in the second framework to run asecond version of the unit test; comparing at least a first outputgenerated by the first version of the automation script running thefirst version of the unit test and at least a second output generated bythe second version of the automation script running the second versionof the unit test to at least one expected unit test result to determinewhether the first output and the second output correlate with theexpected unit test result; and responsive at least to the first outputand the second output correlating with the expected unit test result,determining the second version of the automation script is valid.
 9. Thesystem of claim 8, the executable operations further comprising:automatically creating the second version of the unit test from thefirst version of the unit test.
 10. The system of claim 9, theexecutable operations further comprising: responsive to determining thesecond version of the automation script is valid, outputting the secondversion of the automation script and the second version of the unittest.
 11. The system of claim 8, wherein: execution of the first versionof the automation script in the first framework to run the first versionof the unit test generates a first plurality of outputs; execution ofthe second version of the automation script in the second framework torun the second version of the unit test generates a second plurality ofoutputs; executing the first version of the automation script in thefirst framework to run the first version of the unit test and executingthe second version of the automation script in the second framework torun the second version of the unit test comprises: executing the firstversion of the automation script and executing the second version of theautomation script in parallel; and comparing at least the first outputgenerated by the first version of the automation script running thefirst version of the unit test and at least the second output generatedby the second version of the automation script running the secondversion of the unit test to at least one expected unit test result todetermine whether the first output and the second output correlate withthe expected unit test result comprises: comparing each sequential oneof the first plurality of outputs and a corresponding one of the secondplurality of outputs to the expected unit test result as output pairs.12. The system of claim 11, the executable operations furthercomprising: when at least one output in a particular output pair doesnot correlate with the expected unit test result, identifying code inthe first version of the automation script and code in the secondversion of the automation script that generate the respective outputs inthe output pair.
 13. The system of claim 8, the executable operationsfurther comprising: capturing a first state of a first system hostingthe first framework post execution of the first version of theautomation script; capturing a second state of a second system hostingthe second framework post execution of the second version of theautomation script; and comparing the second state of the second systemto the first state of the first system to determine whether the secondstate correlates with the first state; wherein determining the secondversion of the automation script is valid further is responsive to thesecond state correlating with the first state.
 14. The system of claim8, wherein the second version of the automation script is configured toexecute in a plurality of frameworks.
 15. A computer program productcomprising a computer readable storage medium having program code storedthereon, the program code executable by a processor to perform a methodcomprising: receiving, by the processor, a first version of anautomation script configured to execute in a first framework andexpected unit test results for the automation script; automaticallycreating, by the processor, a second version of the automation scriptfrom the first version of the automation script, the second version ofthe automation script configured to execute in at least a secondframework; executing, by the processor, the first version of theautomation script in the first framework to run a first version of aunit test and executing the second version of the automation script inthe second framework to run a second version of the unit test;comparing, by the processor, at least a first output generated by thefirst version of the automation script running the first version of theunit test and at least a second output generated by the second versionof the automation script running the second version of the unit test toat least one expected unit test result to determine whether the firstoutput and the second output correlate with the expected unit testresult; and responsive at least to the first output and the secondoutput correlating with the expected unit test result, determining, bythe processor, the second version of the automation script is valid. 16.The computer program product of claim 15, the method further comprising:automatically creating the second version of the unit test from thefirst version of the unit test.
 17. The computer program product ofclaim 16, the method further comprising: responsive to determining thesecond version of the automation script is valid, outputting the secondversion of the automation script and the second version of the unittest.
 18. The computer program product of claim 15, wherein: executionof the first version of the automation script in the first framework torun the first version of the unit test generates a first plurality ofoutputs; execution of the second version of the automation script in thesecond framework to run the second version of the unit test generates asecond plurality of outputs; executing the first version of theautomation script in the first framework to run the first version of theunit test and executing the second version of the automation script inthe second framework to run the second version of the unit testcomprises: executing the first version of the automation script andexecuting the second version of the automation script in parallel; andcomparing at least the first output generated by the first version ofthe automation script running the first version of the unit test and atleast the second output generated by the second version of theautomation script running the second version of the unit test to atleast one expected unit test result to determine whether the firstoutput and the second output correlate with the expected unit testresult comprises: comparing each sequential one of the first pluralityof outputs and a corresponding one of the second plurality of outputs tothe expected unit test result as output pairs.
 19. The computer programproduct of claim 18, the method further comprising: when at least oneoutput in a particular output pair does not correlate with the expectedunit test result, identifying code in the first version of theautomation script and code in the second version of the automationscript that generate the respective outputs in the output pair.
 20. Thecomputer program product of claim 15, the method further comprising:capturing a first state of a first system hosting the first frameworkpost execution of the first version of the automation script; capturinga second state of a second system hosting the second framework postexecution of the second version of the automation script; and comparingthe second state of the second system to the first state of the firstsystem to determine whether the second state correlates with the firststate; wherein determining the second version of the automation scriptis valid further is responsive to the second state correlating with thefirst state.